₦airaland Forum

@Kuns,

Kuns:
I have not met you but I can tell , you are a , Cau-asian. If not , then you're a negro with a  slave mentality , man with balck features, but with cau-asian morals and values.

Nope, go ask your alter ego Horus - he knows I'm a Yoruba man; with functioning melanin in my blood. That said, I'm not in your self-enslaved black racist clan - and that is why I've continued to school you guys to drop the self-inflicted mental slavery you both have been shlepping about. Meanwhile, I'm glad for your sake that I'm not the only black person who takes a stand against your black racist movement. 

Kuns:
Any the topic of this conversation is WHY ARE THERE SO MANY DENOMINATIONS , THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW ABOUT ON THIS THREAD, SO LET GET BACK TO THE SUBJECT.

Finally. You see afterall that you racist theories have not yielded the melanin applause you both have been seeking. Believe me, if you had endevoured to stay within the context of the topic/subject of this thread, you would not have had to scurry off anytime issue were presented to educate you on your fallacies.

Cheers then, and keep your melanin free from the self-inflicted and defeatist mentality you've been vending. 

@TV01,

I appreciate the points you have tried to offer for your persuasion; and in part I agree with some of them. However, here is something that I'd like you to reconsider when dealing with leadership :

TV01:
First, I am in no way proclaiming universal male authority. Or the authority of every man (even if we restrict this to mature men - that is making a distinction b/w mature men and simply males) over every woman.

So far so good. This may all sound nice; but I wonder how such statements are again contradicted when we try to read how they are used in practical application. It would seem that this statement has no appeal when leadership in the Body of Christ is concerned:

1.

TV01:
A woman would go from her fathers house to her husbands. In the event of widowhood (as we see from Paul writing to Timothy), the family - normally in the form of adult males - become primarily responsible for her welfare. But there s male covering authority at all times.

2.

TV01:
With this in mind, when/wher/what/how would any woman in the congrgation not be subject to some sort of male authority?

You see what my concerns are in discussing this subject with you guys? On the one hand, you're "in no way proclaiming a universal male authority. .  or the authority of every man over every woman".

However, when applying your own statement to your persuasions, it has become the very opposite, so that the poser is that "there s male covering authority at all times". . . and "when/how would any woman in the congrgation not be subject to some sort of male authority?"

Bros, it just won't work both ways - they are very contradictory positions to assume.

TV01:
Maybe our literary styles are different, or maybe we are talking from different perspecrives and/or contrary premises.

Only partly, I pressume.

TV01:
~ I believe the overall leadership (true servant leadership and modelling maturity) in the office of elder is limited to men. Again it speaks to the dovetailing of the home and church. "If a man cannot rule his own home well" as you yourself quoted. Order starts in the home and flows to the church (TayoD is yet to convince me that women can be subject at home but rule in the church)

Order in the home helps in part; but it does not define Church life. And again, leadership is simply leadership; therefore, the idea of "overall leadership" ascribed to solely the men is not what Scripture says; and I have tried to demonstrate this partly in my rejoinders to sage. Leadership is a joint exercise; not an exclusive one.

TV01:
~ Women can minister/teach other women and juveniles and with authority (from the eldership). They can also counsel privately anyone that can benefit from their maturity, but they cannot in the presence of mature qualified and available men teach or presume overall leadership of the congregation. If one wants to see this ministry as a form of "leadership", I won't be semantic, but it is not shepherding the flock or overall leading the church. Biblically/historically, could/were women ever shepherds?

I have offered a few examples of women called in joint exercise of leadership in the area of shepherding. Let me sound this once more: shepherding is only one of the types of leadership (it is not the only issue that defines leadership).

Second, women do not receive their authority from the eldership. The case is simply that authority comes from the Head of the Body.

Third, the idea that women can minister/teach other women and juvenile is still trying to limit their scope of leadership narrower than the Word defines. How? Men also can minister/teach juveniles as well; so I wouldn't see why that role should be more fitting only for women.

I already gave the example of Aquila and Priscilla in Acts 18 - both the man and the woman together "expounded" the way of God more perfectly to Apollos (vs. 26). Not many people realize that the woman here was fulfilling a role in leadership when she partnered with her husband to 'expound' (make an intelligent exposition of) God's way more perfectly to the very intelligent Apollos.

TV01:
~ Women have roles, abetted with skills, talents, gifts and of course the same Spirit and grace afforded to men. Their are joint heirs and equally valued by God.

I don't disparage that at all. The question is: what would those talents, skills and gifts point to? What "roles" do you think women have (as you said here)?

TV01:
I appreciate your efforsts, but I sometimes find it very hard to pin down your persuasions. I also understand that there are nuances to the discussion, but either way, it would be easier if we could discuss from stated views or considered opinions.

I've been trying my best to simplify things, and will continue to do so. What is constantly before me is that whatever I offer should not simply be theories; but practical and applicable as well.

@sage,

sage:
2 Can you please define what Leadership roles you say a woman can assume and what you mean by difference in Leadership and worship (Bearing in mind that decisions affecting the congregations are the responsibility of the Elders and this decision making body were ONLY MEN as led by God's holy spirit)

A. First, let me attempt to distinguish between leadership and worship.

(a) Leadership is defined in terms of responsibility to care for others in various capacities according to God's gifting. It also involves training others for the ministry to fulfill their various callings towards the one goal of edifying the Body unto maturity.

Ephesians 4:12 & 13 might help us understand this point: 'For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ'.

(b) Worship is a collective response which the saints offer as spiritual sacrifices to God. In this understanding, everyone (men and women) are priests together; and no one 'presides' over this matter or take the 'lead' in the NT priestly worship of Christians. That is why I have asked for a reference where ONLY MEN were 'presiding over' the worship of NT believers; as I haven't come across any such references.

The difference between leadership and worship can be delineated as follows:

(i) leadership is exercised towards others in terms of ministry to people
(ii) worship is a collective response of people towards God

(i) leadership involves people functioning in various capacities over others.
(ii) worship involves every saint standing on only one ground: priests.


B. Secondly, at the risk of repeating myself, let me once again offer you some leadership roles for women in the Church.

(a) I have offered a few in the following links:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.96.html#msg1250862
i. Women are also priests in the NT
ii Women are also to prophesy in Church
iii. Women could also be leaders in HELPS and GOVERNMENTS in Church


https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.128.html#msg1252382
Women as teachers of good things - Titus 2:3-5.


https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.128.html#msg1256170
Leadership roles of women from Ephesians 4 (my reply to TayoD)


(b) In addition, let me make a few remarks as to the concerns here about this polemic subject of women shepherding God's people. I have been making the case for just one thing: leadership in the Body of Christ is a partnership, rather than an exercise exclusively devoted to men.

(i) In the OT, there are examples indeed of women who were called to be leaders over God's people. I have severally offered the distinguished example of Deborah; and up until now none of you have been able to debunk the fact that she was indeed a leader set over the entire nation of Israel when she judged them (Judg. 4:4-5).

(ii) Another example indeed is Miriam. Now, please I beg you all to carefully note the point I have been making - and in this case, she was not the exclusive leader (or 'shepherd') over the entire nation; and observe also that neither was shepherding over God's people a matter of "men only" (Moses and Aaron). The Word of God makes clear that as far as leadership in this context was concerned, it was a joint exercise involving all three -

For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of
the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.
(Mic. 6:4)

Why is it that people have continued to miss this very point? I offer that it is simply because we have always tried to read "only males" into this issue; but until we open our eyes and see what God has been saying, we continue to miss the fact that women were also called as partners in shepherding God's people. Each one is called to a distinct service; nevertheless, that is an exercise that is jointly managed by men and women.

I hope I have helped your understanding on this point?

Perhaps I'll have time to come back before the end of the week to deal with other issues - especially with the examples in the NT on the joint exercise of leadership in the Church. At the moment, keep constantly in mind that what I'm trying to offer is that men were not called to "go it alone" in this exercise; and it's quite unfortunate that the idea of 'overall leadership' is a human idea interjected to continue this drive for an men-only world in the leadership of the Church.

@sage,

I have been quite occupied up until just now; and I'd like to make this very quick before returning to my tight schedule. Many thanks for the recent concerns expressed in both yours and TV01's. For the most part, you seem to have again repeated yourself in the several new replies. However, rather than go through every line in my rejoinder, I'll just highlight the salient points and deal with them.

sage:
I don't understand understand you on the issue of the apostles too

You said that the Church was not yet formed then. I don't know what point you are trying to make with that.


Jesus had chosen his apostles and had assigned them Leadership roles among his followers. These apostles took the lead in the Church in Leading and Issuing directives.

If you carefully follow my points, you would see that I've tried to carefully delineate apostolic gifts in the Church from the Twelve chosen before the Church came into existence. Let me put it simply again:

(a) the Twelve apostles chosen before Christ went to the Cross -
'And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve,
            whom also he named apostles' - Luke 6:13.

(b) other apostles chosen after by the risen and ascended Lord Jesus -
'Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave
gifts unto men. . . And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some,
evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers' - Eph. 4:8 & 11

During the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus, there were only Twelve apostles (Judas by transgression fell, and Matthias was chosen by lot in his place - Acts 1:25-26). After His resurrection and ascension, the Lord gave gifts unto men, among whom were apostles - meaning that there were more than Twelve apostles when the Church came into existence in Acts 2. (Incidentally, I've severally asked TV01 earlier how many apostles he saw in the NT; but he couldn't give me a clear answer either)

sage:
1 Why did Jesus Choose only men as his apostles and gave them Leadership roles in the Church that was to be established despite having faithful women who had toiled with him around him? Why did he not assign them any leadership role?

For one, the Church did not exist until Acts 2. So we should carefully note that during His earthly ministry, the Lord Jesus kept within the context of the Jews stipulations for worship. He could not have chosen women at the time because Eph. 4:8 & 11 happened only after His ascension.

Secondly, when the Body of Christ was formed on earth by the descent of the Holy Spirit, certain Jewish perceptions were initially still adhered to (as in apostle Peter's case in Acts 10 where he had to give up his Jewish prejudice against the Gentiles - 'how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation', vs. 28 ). However, as the Church grew and through the conversion and ministry of apostle Paul we come to see the various leadership roles each one had in the Body of Christ - 'But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ' (Eph. 4:7). The gifts delineated in vs. 11 were not given to only males, as vs. 7 makes clear that such gifts included women who were also in the Body of Christ as well.

@sage,

sage:
The problem really stems from the fact that you are trying to make it look like the oversight of the congregation which were done by only Men who were elders in the first century congregation under the guidiance of the holy spirit is somehow discriminatory and that if women are not allowed to lead that that somehow points towards discrimination.

Again, I have stated severally and clearly that I do NOT see a discrimination - but BALANCE!!

I have also called attention to the fact that leadership in the Church is not exclusively for ONLY MEN, as women also have leadership roles to play in the ministry of the Body.

Third, please notice how I offered examples upon examples to show my persuasions; as well as often and repeatedly make the points that:

    i. leadership in Church is a calling of both men and women - a ministry in partnership (or, 'TOGETHER')

   ii. the scope of leadership for women is defined by two things: they are not to teach in Church nor to usurp authority over the men.

I hope once again you can see that I'm not holding out a discrimination against anyone?

sage:
I used the examples of how true worship has been constructed throughout human history to shows that leadership roles have been reserved for certain people. in the christian congregation that role was open only to men. That does not mean the others worshiping God did not or do not have the same measure of his blessing and cannot serve in other capacities in the worship of God nor will not get the same reward

I have offered just one question to you in this regard: where in the NT does LEARDERSHIP = WORSHIP?

In that same regard, I offered another like unto that: who was leading the worship of God's people in the NT?

It is not enough to assume a simplistic answer that ONLY MEN were cosen to lead in worship. To make such assumptions would mean that we're still confusing worship with leadership in service.

I asked what roles women were called to play in the Church - and I got no answers from you guys . . .until I made an attempt to offer examples upon examples. The default men-only idea would make one believe that a woman is synonymous to chores in the home and kitchen. Is that all there is for those who have been called and equipped to serve in the Church TOGETHER with the men?

@TV01,

TV01:
For some reason, you insist that voluntary tithing akin to giving. Please show what the distinction is if any. And the difference in benefits if any.

My dear, I did not so tie them. If you're deliberately forcing that idea into my rejoinder, you'll be needlessly sweating out your case. What I have observed in your own position on this matter is that you make tithing mandatory by default; and anyone who tries to share something with you on the subject will have to see you react predictably. How many times have you been asked to rest the "mandatory" connection aside and see things in their simplicity?

Now, since for you it has to be a NO-NO situation, I ask that you please do one thing already offered: mirror your objections on any other type of giving YOU approve of and let me ask you the one pointed question that will open your eyes to your militant objections.

TV01:
Sleight of hand I see.

Which you have used severally, NO?

TV01:
I have repeatedly stated that giving is an integral part of the Christian lifestyle. Your attempting to equate tithing with giving while at the same time saying it is something different is at best confused. Or if I'm the one that is confused, perhaps an answer to my question in bold above may help.

TV01, let me remind you once again:

(a) were you not the same fellow that made so much noise in bold about tithing being equated to TAX, until syrup laid your arguments to rest?

(b) were you not the same chap that was asked to delineate the types of giving you see in the NT - and up until now you are at pains to evade that?

Now, repentantly you come back stating that "giving is an integral part of the Christian lifestyle" - and for all of that, you haven't been able to see your own exercising in making such an obligation as you previously argued against! So, what happens if another Christian does not see it as "integral" (read as your "mandatory")??

TV01:
You don't appear to differentiate between giving, tithing and law. Back to my question above.

Sorry bros, that is because you must have refused to see that I'm not arguing tithing from law! You again are the one pushing this idea that tithing must be by law - otherwise I don't see why you need connect it that way yet again after the case has been stated that it ought not be so!

TV01:
Heartfelt, freewill giving is loved of and blessed by God.

This again is what I offered:

stimulus:
I'll just ask one thing of you, please: could you offer me some explanation of the following verses:

Deut. 15:10
"Thou shalt surely give him, and ^(A)thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him: ^(B)because that for this thing the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto."

Prov. 3:9-10
^(A)"Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: ^(B)[So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine."

Prov. 19:17
"He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again."

Luke 6:38
"Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again."

You haven't answered my question with that evasive run-away cliche. So, please: https://bestsmileys.com/signs4/12.gif.

TV01:
Who made this claim? Surely you can't be ascribing it to me as although I said that NT "simply give" (to a need), I never suggested or hinted that there was no blessing attached.

Ahh, I see. So, there's a blessing attached afterall? Welcome home.

TV01:
Like I said, you have no clue what I want to do, or what I believe. But in any event, please don't ascribe things to me. What you can do is answer the question. Please non of your usual fence-sitting, non-commital ambiguity.

Pally, for eons you have been playing your own complaining games. If you try not ascribing things to others, you would not have to suppose anyone was doing same to you. And further, please don't try those spirito-evasions with me - answers to my questions would be simply appreciated.

Regards.

_{Shahan, na wah for you O!}

jayon:
Let us stop diz arguments diz people have been blindfolded can't u see, THAT ISLAM IS FALLING

Well, what we can see is being denied by the islamists! Small time now, they will come again with the propaganda that Islam is the "fastest" growing religion all over the world! Remind them of how fast Sura 19:71 is being fulfilled, and wait to see the "peace" in them!

Kuns my guy. . . lol.

https://bestsmileys.com/signs3/16.gif

Not to worry. Let's just ask YOU a few questions:

Kuns:
Yet Tamarean (African/Nubian) peoples worldwide are still enslaved.

Who really is still enslaving them? Care to ask Mugabe?

Kuns:
Our clothing is still provided by the slavemaster, For what do we manufacture
Our food is still provided by the slavemaster, For what do we grow
Our Homes are still provided by the slavemaster, For what do we build
Our Language is still that of the slavemaster, for we know not our history

I know, I know. . . It's just such a pity that after 500 years, your clan is the only ones who can't manufacture, grow food, build homes, or even use language properly. Even the homes your clan attempts to build are destroyed by members of your own clan again!!

At this point, wetin we go do to take help una? Because, it seems as if anything done for your clan will be summarily destroyed! Melanin works wonders sometimes!

Kuns:
Our Music is still provided by the slavemaster, for most of our music contains lust and violence and is owned by Media Corporations

See that? I don talk am tey-tey! Even music from your clan contains lust and violence!! Mugabe, how far??

Kuns:
Our Economics are owned by the slavemaster, for we work for him then give all our money back to him

Yes, true that. Because when the same "slavemaster" gives the bosses of your clan huge sums of money as financial AID, not one korofo in your clan will have a better life! Leaving Mugabe aside for a while, let me introduce yet another: SWAZILAND! Take a trip to that small melanin-country and see what your melanin brother is doing with the labour, sweat and money of his melanin brothers!

>sniff< Oh God, help these guys!! https://bestsmileys.com/crying/12.gif

Kuns:
Our spirituality is still owned by the slavemaster, for we adhere to the religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam that Enslave us.

I know. It's just that the talk of "enslave us" means that your melanin was not strong enough, abi?

Kuns:
Our beauty is dictated by the slavemaster, for we relax our kingly hair and wear coloured contact lenses to look like Europeans

I don't want to post pictures of the "kingly hair" you're referring to; but if you take a trip to the appropraite thread for the pictures on the "weaving hair" thread, you'll see what I mean.

Kuns:
Our Minds are still owned by the slavemaster, for the majority of you will read this and still not care.

The majority of us have freed our minds from the 500-year-old mental slavery of your clan and moved on. Any trouble with that, hmmm?

Kuns:
With none of these fundamentals how can we say we are free and even more puzzling is why do we not see we are still enslaved.

Pathetic. How is it that when opportunities for freedom is here already, you still SEE yourself as enslaved?

Kuns:
Dr Malachi Z. York continues the works of other great leaders by providing information to release us from this mental slavery called the spell of Leviathan.

Dr. Malachi must be a poor fellow struggling with his own mental slavery and passing is entanglements on to his clan. Little wonder then that after freedom has come, YOU of all people still see yourself as ENSLAVED!!

Don't die on Dr. Malachi's 430 books - they will drive you even further into deep "sleep" and more astonishing phobia of other races. Life is here - LIVE!!

Kuns:
These people are possessed by a destructive demonic spirit. Islam as practiced todays is nothing but hellish cultism.

Even you, too - you see am so??

Hey Kuns! How bodi?

I've been wanting to say: let's seek to appreciate everyone - it doesn't matter what colour of skin we have.

https://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/solace/grouphug.gif Hey, joins hands and let's enjoy our humanity!!

@TayoD,

TayoD:
It is difficult to respond to your posts because you tend to be superflous in your use of words. You say the same thing a thousand different ways and that makes it a task trying to debate with you.

Well, I found the same problems in his posts and I'm learning to be patient - as many people have been patient with me as well.

TayoD:
As you can see from these scriptures, Christ is the Head of one body - the Church, and the husband (not just any male), is the Head of His Wife (not all females).

This is the main contention I have with everyone on this thread. Until we realise that a male is no where given authority over the female strictly because of gender (with the exception of marriage), we will not even begin to appreciate the equality of both sexes within the body.

I was just going to ask you: if the distinctions in relationship between the sexes are predicated upon marriage only, what about the UNmarried members of the Body of Christ - does I Cor. 11:3 not speak to them as well?

I Cor. 7: 32 "But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord"

vs. 34 - "There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband."

Is leadership in the Body (especially as enunciated in Heb. 13:17) a matter for only those married? If not, what place then do the UNmarried have in the scheme of things enunciated in I Cor. 11:3?

@sage,

sage:
The hard work of women in worshiping God are appreciated even in the scriptures.

Paul compared the work of women who declear the good news of the kingdom of Christ to the nations to a Large army and he sent out commendation and encouragement to women who had laboured with him in his efforts.

But the question is who is to Oversee and preside over the Flock in worship?

I believe for us to do that we have to keep human reasoning to the side
and examine closely the example of the Master Jesus Christ and the First Century Christians who did God's will.

I'm still asking to whom the gifts of Ephesians 4 were made - ONLY MEN? At least, I have offered somewhat how this works out in practical situations; and let us never forget that the Church did not exist until Acts 2. That is why I have offered that the Twelve apostles called by the Lord Jesus Christ BEFORE He went to the Cross does not mean that ONLY those Twelve remained apostles throughout the existence of the Church!

sage:
When Paul gave out the qualifications for those who would serve as Elders and Oversee the flock, it was clear that such positions of Oversight was reserved for Men
( In Timothy)

When issues affecting the first century congregation were to be decided, the holy spirit directed only men as elders to take leadership decisions (In Acts)

On a number of occassions that directives had to be issued to Congregations all over the world, the Elders were the ones that would take the lead in making decisions as regards to worship

Jesus Christ before he asscended to heaven had chosen only men as his apostles. When he gave instructions as to Oversight of the flock, it was to his male apostles (despite the presence of women disciples)

Again, I'm appealing to you not to mix up the dichotomy between the Twelve chosen before Christ went to the Cross; and the apostle He set in the Church after His ascension (Eph. 4:11). The problem here is that every so often we tend to mix them up and can't carefully delineate which is which. That is why it has remained quite difficult for us to see the scope of leadership to which women were called; and often times it seems we simply refuse to see the case, because most of us prefer to remain with the die-heard notion of exclusivity for MALE leadership.

sage:
What i don't understand though is that are you somehow suggesting that God's holy spirit directing only men to take the role of Elders and to have oversight of the flock in the first century was somehow Chauvunistic and discriminatory Does Jesus assigning the duty of Shepharding the flock to his male disciples somehow sexist?

I have not used those terms in my rejoinders; and I wonder why you guys are at pains to often interprete issues that way. Mr sage, I have again and again addressed this very question; but I now appeal to you guys - please calmly go through the points I made: perhspa you will see them.

sage:
Both Jesus and the First century Christians acted under the guidiance of God's holy spirit and fully had God's favour.

Does that mean the women did not have God's favour?

sage:
The reason i cited the examples i did was to show that humans might not fully comprehend why God makes certain arraingments when it comes to worship and leading in worship.

As far as God's Word reveals answers to most of the questions we have been asking, I don't think we should pretend our own assumptions as substitutes to those answers.

sage:
For eg some people in Israel might not have understood why God choose a certain group of people over another, and it might have even looked unjust in the eyes of humans but if they were to have God's approval, they had to subject to his will and follow the way of worship he approved of

And I have offered that using the arguments of the OT as basis for NT worship will simply miss the point - repeatedly. Let me repeat it once more:

Worship in the NT is not a continuum of OT worship!

I hope that last line would help us think and better appreciate NT issues.

@sage,

sage:
My examples were simply to show that God has placed headship in the christian congregation in a certain way and its not up to humans to change that. Yeah Korah was Levite and Datan and Abiram were Rubenites but the point i was trying to make is that they felt that Moses was promoting a certain class of people over another and that that was not God's will.

I wait to see what point that could bear upon what we have been discussing. In the Body of Christ, matters are not about what tribe one belongs to. Second, Korah's case was not as you pressume - it was rather this:

Num. 16:3 - "wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?"

This does not sound like your previous argument at all --

Korah felt that any Israelite who worshiped God should also be able to take the lead in worship and not what he thought was an elite class of Levites that he felt Moses was advocating.

Korah was not interested at all in the collective interest of "any Israelite". Rather, he was self-centered. Actually, in Biblical escatology, you would have to look for the underlying cause of a matter before drawing your inference. And if I may offer such in this narrative, you find that the real instigators who strove against Moses were Dathan and Abiram - they only used Korah as a stooge (since he was a Levite like Moses):

   "And the sons of Eliab; Nemuel, and Dathan, and Abiram. This is that Dathan and Abiram, which were
    famous in the congregation, who strove against Moses and against Aaron in the company of Korah,
    when they strove against the LORD"  -- Num. 26:9

In any case, the point is that I don't find how that relates to the case of barring women from leadership in the NT.

sage:
God had placed the leadership position in the hands of certain people and the Israelites (And he had his reasons) so regardless of what the other Israelites felt about it beign fair or not or discriminatory  they had to obey and follow it wholeheartedly if they were to have God's favour.

I understand; but what does that have to do with a MEN-ONLY leadership in the CHURCH?

sage:
There is this assertion i don't know if you are making

That under Christ there is neither male nor female therefore females can become the oversears, elders and Shephards and preside over the flock?

I know this hasn't been easy for some of us to see. But no, I haven't been making that kind of assertion.

    SALVATION: no gender distinctions (Gal 3:26-28)

     For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
     For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
     There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,
     there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

    SERVICE: distinctions made (I Cor. 11:3 & Eph. 5:23)
    But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;
    and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

     APPLICATION: various services working together (I Cor. 11:11; 12:4-6)
     Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman,
     neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

     Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
     And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
     And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all
            - God works in all (not some)


So, where do I find leadership roles for women? I have offered previously a sketch from Ephesians 4 in my response to TayoD; and even much earlier on HELPS and GOVERNMENTS (I Cor. 12:28  - please refer).  

sage:
i still have not seen anything in the bible to support that kind of assertion if that is what you are saying.

Please go through the recommendations above.

sage:
There were female prophets in the old testament like Miriam and Deborah(who also served as a judge in her own case). It would be erronous to think that it changed divine standards.

I'm not asking if it changed divine standards. The question is simply this:

     Deborah JUGDED the entire nation of Israel - was she leader over the nation or NOT?
     If Deborah was such a leader unto whom the children of Israel came for judgement, did God
     account that as an abuse of His divine order? Was Deborah consequently jugded for that?

I am offering these questions again because many people who assume the MEN-ONLY leadership over God's people simply don't want to look at Deborah's case. Would it be that they fear that their own assertions that ALL kings and leaders in the OT were MEN - and so see how wrong they were??

sage:
Samuel was a judge like Deborah, but when it came to presiding over the worship of God he led the Israelites in Worship. This was a role no woman played in the bible.

Did you not say that those who were leaders over God's people were also responsible for worship? Is Deborah making you change your mind on what YOU said? Women must be powerful then!  

sage:
You have cited Miriam leading fellow women in worship, Paul admonishing women to teach fellow women and the proclamation of Joel.

But these passages in no way contradict the fact that Leadership in worship was a role played only by men even under the first century Christian congregation.

I'm still waiting for you to provide me with text showing that LEADERSHIP = WORSHIP!! Who was the leader of the worship of God's children under the NT?

@TV01,

TV01:
You keep misapplying scripture that does not speak to a church setting, whilst ignoring those that do. In addition to the injunctions in 1 Cor & 2 Tim, the qualifications for eldership are clearly related to gender. Quoting “one in Christ” or “man without woman” in order to push female leadership is at best misguided. Nobody said women are without the Spirit, talents or ability. Indeed, verbally they are on average more gifted than men, so what?

If I have ignored scripture that speak to church setting, please what do you make of this that I offered earlier? --

I'm more persuaded that the apostle was setting forth matters concerning the church in that chapter, rather than domestic concerns:

vs. 5 -- "that the church may receive edifying";

vs. 12 -- "seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church".

vs. 19 -- "Yet in the church I had rather speak five words"

vs. 23 -- "If therefore the whole church be come together into one place"

vs. 26 -- "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together"

vs. 28 -- "let him keep silence in the church"

vs. 33 -- "as in all churches of the saints."

vs. 34 -- "Let your women keep silence in the churches"

These all demonstrate that rather than domestic concerns, that chapter deals with the collective life of the Church.

Besides, you may read my inputs as misguided; but how is it that you have not offered anything to apply the texts appropriately?

TV01:
Neither has anyone said that the roles women play in church are less than profound. But you also seem to miss it on some other points

They may not have said so verbatim; but you are one of those narrowing leadership to a MEN-ONLY exclsuive party! Now when you do that, where do you leave women in the Body of Christ?

TV01:
~ You omit the profundity of the woman’ role in the home

I did not omit the role of women in the home. If you would be happier that I offer some explicatory notes on that, I would gladly do so. My rejoinders so far have sought to remain within the context of the core question of the thread - and I'm not writing a book about the totality of women.

May I also observe that MEN have their own role-profundity in the home? (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? -- I Tim 3:4)

TV01:
~ You fail to understand that home is at least as important as church

I wasn't discussing the home either; nor do I confuse domestic affairs with Church life -- I have often and again distinguished between the two; so in what exactly have I "failed"? Did you ask me prior to this time? Or was anyone concerned about it to have missed your red pen?

TV01:
~ You seem to fall into the trap of thinking leadership is about “power”. Maybe in secular terms, but in the Christian economy, it’s about service.

And I have again and again spoken in terms of service, mentioning that the issues are about "God's economy" and not about secular power! Did you care to read my rejoinders?

TV01:
~ Being in Christ and being in church are not in all ways synonymous, as someone has pointed out, salvation is not the same as service.

Oh please! Did you read me anywhere stating that salvation and service are the same? Is it that simply wanted to force your ideas into my posts about a position I did not assume on this topic?

TV01:
Even if I agree to the idea of a partnership, that does not traduce the concept of gender separation, lines of authority, or areas of responsibility. A man and wife both come together to create a newborn. Please ask God why the differing roles are not gender neutral or interchangeable.

TV01, this one thing I ask of you: before you ramble on next time, have the patience of a gentleman and READ posts FIRST! If you're not clear - read them AGAIN! You're making it sound as if I have attempted to state issues the way you see them - whereas I have made the point clear already!

@TV01,

TV01:
Agreed. But my position is that overall leadership in the church (regardless of minor or subsidiary leadership roles) is limited to men (plurality of elders noted).

I would appreciate you offering why this is so from Scripture - especially as regards the points I have offered showing the examples where women are called together with the men in Church leadership and authority.

TV01:
Under the Headship of The Lord, I believe they can.

They were not asked to do so; and that is why I have offered inputs in that regards. Claiming that they can do so by appeal to under "the Headship of Christ" would sound as if women are not a part of that same Body of which Christ is the Head -- Col. 1:18.

TV01:
Overall my view on your posts on this topic are as follows;

Yes we are all members of the Body. Yes we all joined together, have something to minister and thereby edify one another. Yes the priestly role is universal (presumably you know that priests offer spiritual sacrifices and intercede?). Yes the Spirit of God is poured out on all flesh (no gender bias, but may I ask in passing, is that Jews, Christians &/or Gentiles?). Yes the genders are complimentary and dependent one on the other. But why does any of this suggest that in a church setting women are to take anything other then secondary lead in well defined roles?

Excuse me, did I just read you say "secondary lead"? I thought the strain of your argument is that LEADERSHIP "(regardless of minor or subsidiary leadership roles) is limited to men"? This is where this weakness in that kind of argument lies: if leadership is the EXCLUSIVE preserve of men, then that throws out the idea that women can lead at all in any capacity - since you guys make it an EXCLUSIVE/LIMITED exercise to MEN-ONLY!!

Women are not called to take a "secondary lead" (nevermind the ambiguity in yours). They are called to exercise leadership in Church within the scope of I Cor. 14:34 and I Tim. 2:12 - to not teach in Church nor to usurp authority over men. As I have offered, this does not mean that women do not have other important roles of leadership to play in Church.

Now, as to the issue of "elders", we still make the same mistake of seeing them as a "men-only exclsuive preserve". Since I don't want my thoughts to run ahead of me, may I ask why you make this assumption?

TV01:
You’ve gone on and on about chauvinists, 2nd class citizens, oppressing women, male exclusivity ect (all very familiar militant feminist jargon), but you have singularly failed to demonstrate that women are to lead the flock of God in anything other than a subsidiary (or at best contingency) role.

For one, I am not a feminist. The terms I used may sound all that to you; but if you guys will just throw your male-exclusivity aside and sit down and see what God's Word has said about women, I'm sure that exclusivistic idea will melt away.

Second, you're coming back yet again arguing that I have not demonstrated that women are to lead the flock of God. TV01, do I take it that you simply just don't want to reason at all or what? My position is this:

1.   Leadership is Church is NOT the exclusive preserve of MEN (it is not a MEN-ONLY exercise)
2.   To assume that idea of MEN-ONLY is the direct opposite of FEMINISM
3.   men and women are TOGETHER called to lead; and as such it is NOT an exercise exclusive to either gender!

That is why I have offered examples after examples on these very points; and I have constantly reminded us of the fact by referring to I Cor. 11:11.

@sage,

While I'll be waiting for your sequel, let me make the following remarks:

sage:
Korah felt that any Israelite who worshiped God should also be able to take the lead in worship and not what he thought was an elite class of Levites that he felt Moses was advocating.

(a) The question is about WOMEN in leadership - and I hope you can observe same and make it easier for people like TV01 who are concerned that "nobody is arguing against" the issues you have been offering.

(b) Korah did not feel that ANY Israelite should be able to take the lead in worship; that was why he chose a certain class of men. He and his companions chose "two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown" (Num. 16:2). There was no woman among Korah's select group; so please keep this in mind when discussing in your sequel.

(c) Korah as a levite as Moses; so the issue here was not tribal. Remember Moses clearly called Korah by his tribe: "And Moses said unto Korah, Hear, I pray you, ye sons of Levi" (Num. 16:8 ). Korah sought to assume a role that was not his; and that does not actually hold the grounds for the question of Women in Leadership among God's people.

--------

sage:
Uzzah was a God Fearing man who was among those bringing the Ark back to Jerusalem. . . In God’s divine arraignment of worship, only certain people could come near the ark in that manner. Uzzah disrespected God’s arraignment for worship and had to die, irrespective of how noble his intentions were.

Again, I'd like to ask TV01 to note this. Further, at the risk of repeating myself, I'll simply say that NT worship is NOT a continuum of OT worship. Today in Christ, every believer (men and women) are brought near to God: "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us" (Heb. 9:24 - "for US" - both men and women).

------------

As Samuel latter showed him his good intentions did not count. What counted was that in trying to assume a position which he was not allowed, he disobeyed and disrespected that divinely ordained arraignment. It was not a case of anybody could take the lead as long as we are worshiping God. Only a designated person by God could take that lead for that worship to be acceptable to God. (Similar to what people say today that it does not matter who, as long as it is God they are trying to worship)

Again, leaders are appointed by God - and in the NT priesthood, both men and women are TOGETHER called in worship. The various spheres of leadership in the Bible of Christ is not a men-only ministry.

-----------

Miriam was a prophetess and a Levite woman who led fellow women in worship of God. At a point, she wanted to do more than that and assume a role which in God’s arraignment she was not allowed to do. She became discontent with her position in pure worship and started to desire a role that she could not have.

Atahliah was a woman who overstepped her place in Gods arraignment and felt she could assume a position which women were not allowed to. God executed her for that.

And what about Deborah the prophetess who judged the ENTIRE nation of Israel - did she assume that role on her own or was she made to suffer divine judgement from God for her leadership over the ENTIRE nation??

I hope when you come back, you would offer some balance on the points you want to make.

TV01,

TV01:
Can women take overall lead of the flock? The thread is titled "Can you attend a church led by a woman?" Presumably that would be a yes or a no and why not.

Let me go over this again with you:

a) I have stated sometime earlier that this topic is not as simplistic as many people try to make it sound (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.128.html#msg1256056).

b) when I saw the refined poser of the thread originator ("the spiritual authority of a female leader?", I have offered my arguments in view of that same context: what roles do women play in Church?

c) even so, my answers to your question here are these:

  i) no one (men or women) can take overall lead of any church
 ii) men cannot claim exclusive leadership in Church
iii) leadership in Church is a partnership involving both men and women working TOGETHER.

TV01:
Here's why I'm confused

(a) The bible outlines area where women can take the lead, participate and/or minister. So you have not said either way if women can lead a church.
(b) With that in mind, can a woman lead a church?

The reason why I have not said that a woman (singular) can lead a church is that I do not read it so in the Bible. And the same applies to the man - I do not read it anywhere said that A MAN (singular) can lead a church.

The one thing I have been trying to consistently offer is that leadership in Church is not exclusive to men (nor even exclsuive to women)! Leadership in church is a partnership - a joint ministry; and I offered I Cor. 11:11 to help us constantly remember this point [Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord].

TV01:
(c) Overall leadership is (IMHO), and I'm happy to say so and stand to be corrected, if you can show it from scripture. Your ambiguous use of terms like "leadership roles" says not very much.

Uhm. . . I still haven't read you state what in your HO is "leadership". What is it really?

Besides, if "leadership roles" etc would not make for happy readings, I could as well offer thee xact wordings in our English Bibles and still retain the same sense.

TV01:
(d) How did you arrive at the "leadership partnership" conclusion? It is not a partnership between the sexes if that's what you meant. All the members of the body are in some way gifted and can contribute and of course work in partnership. That doesn't necessarily suggest leadershio roles for all. Eldership is reserved for mature males.

Sorry, if you go through the various examples I offered, you will see my point. This idea that leadership is an exclusive exercise to men (mature or otherwise) is a weak position to assume because that is the very thing I have been challenging all along - with references to the point.

When we see leadership as only that reserved to men, we fail to appreciate the various leadership roles/positions that women are called to offer in the Body of Christ.

TV01:
(e) Again, nobody is arguing against a universal priesthood, but why does that mean leadership? A priest offers up spiritual sacrifices and interceeds.

Please go back again and see that at least someone (sage) made reference to the OT priesthood as if that was evidence for an exclusive MEN-ONLY leadership in "pure worship" in the Church. Let me ask you here: where does that kind of reasoning lead - if not back to the same flawed position of seeing NT worship as a continuum of the OT worship?

That we all are priests (men and women) simply means that no one takes precedence in such spiritual matters above others. Who leads the NT worship?

TV01:
Just because the OT paradigm for priesthood is changed to be all-inclusive, it doesn't automatically imply that women can lead a NT church.

The point is that leadership is an exercise in partnership - not the exclusive preserve of male or female. They work TOGETHER!

TV01:
You keep trying to tie everything back to leadership. And at the same time you are being ambiguous on what exactly leadership is, especially overall leading of the flock.

Well, if I "keep trying to tie everything back to leadership" would that not be because this topic is asking inputs on that very same issue? Second, I am not being ambiguous on what exactly leadership is; nor yet on what I have taken the time to explicate regarding what I have offered. Do you care to be specific in what concerns you might want to raise about my submissions?

The "overall leading of the flock" is not something reserved exclusively to men!

TV01:
All can minister, all can serve, but not all can lead.

Perhaps that is what I have also offered in reference to James 3:1 - "My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. ".

TV01:
To say that women have "leadership roles" is to essentially say nothing in regards to the specific question posed in this thread.

Really? Then do I take it that you deliberately refused to read inputs before making that assumption? Please clam down, go through once again, look up my references and how I tried to explicate them in regards to my persuasions; and afterwards please offer what you think I might be missing out on.

TV01:
Perhaps specifics would help.

I trust I've done that. Please refer.

Cheers.

@TV01,

TV01:
Lets just leave Bari_Kade to post when and as shall we? There is obviously some cross-purpose on that point, so lets desist.

Which is what I've been calling to your attention.

TV01:
Be as pedantic as you please. The madatory tithe under the law was agricultural products. An exception was made when transporting them was onerous. Happy now? If you have an informed rebuttal to this point please post.

I'm not being more pedantic as you often try to read others' inputs. What I pointed out was in your use of expressions that will lead us nowhere if we don't begin early enough to raise concerns thereto.

TV01:
That is simply your opinion. You have no clue to what most people hold on to.

Don't make me laugh, bros. How many times was the challenge offered - and not one time did anyone of you take up his challenge!

TV01:
I have repeatedly stated as follws;

1. There is no mandatory (curse for failure) tithe.

Then I guess one has to remind you that he was offering severally that tithes were NOT mandatory as you often again and again argued?

TV01:
Nor is there a
2. Voluntary (spiritual benefits attached, maturity implied, because one calls it a "tithe" one.

Oh come on. If there's neither a mandatory nor voluntary tithe/giving, what are you arguing about then? This is the problem with how you guys make some of us woonder at your debates: it seems to be neither here nor there!

TV01:
If one wants to give and call it a tithe, fine.

And if one wants to give and call it 10% by law, fine also - yes?  This is hardly an discussion.

TV01:
As I said earlier and reposted below;

There is nothing about a mandatory tithe and a voluntary one cannot be distinguished from giving, unless you ascribe some benefits from doing so, thus ascribing it some sort of difference from normal giving? Now, pray tell, does the NT do that?

The only way out, is a voluntary tithe as an individual response, which does not in itself accrue benefits denied to one who does not do same, or mark the tither out as any more spiritual or mature. If that's your call no qualms.

I'll just ask one thing of you, please: could you offer me some explanation of the following verses:

Deut. 15:10
"Thou shalt surely give him, and ^(A)thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him: ^(B)because that for this thing the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto."

Prov. 3:9-10
^(A)"Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: ^(B)[So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine."

Prov. 19:17
"He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again."

Luke 6:38
"Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again."

When people argue that NT believers "simply give" and it has no "blessing" thereto, I'm only wondering if they actually are open to what the Word teaches, or they simply want to remain in their default contrary views.

TV01:
If you have anything to post in response, please do so.

I hope this is a discussion? If you don't want to tithe or give at all because you believe there's no blessing thereto, please remain with that idea to yourself and try not passing it as an authoritarian view.

Cheers.

Rev. King - notin go happen to the man. He is only advertizing his trade to those who would soon start soliciting his services again.

@topic:

YES.

For only one thing: to evangelize them until they throw me out!

The question is can I "attend" such a church? As long as I'm not a m[i]ember[/i] of the church, nor seeking fellowship or worship with them as led by the gay pastors.

Hi TV01,

TV01:
I was about to post, when I saw your latest rejoinders. Pray tell, what exacltly is your position? I'm finding it very hard to discern.

Well, I'll try and articulate them shortly.

TV01:
I'd appreciate your outlining it in a few clear and concise sentences, otherwise my rejoinder may be mis-directed and mis-understood.

I hope I won't compund issues all the more; so here's an attempt to outline my position:


1. My recent entry to this discussion was informed by the originator's refined poser:

shinystar:
The point is can you submit to the spiritual authority of a female leader? Let's keep chatting.

2. Thereupon, I offered this:

stimulus:
Perhaps it might be more helpful to appreciate the roles played by women in the Church; rather than just simply relegating them to a black hole mentality as if they were meant to exist and never be heard.

What roles do women play in Church? Women may not have been among the priesthood of the OT; but they are undeniably included in the priesthood of all Christian believers in the NT (I Pet. 2:5 & 9).

- - -
I believe there are answers for some of the questions many of us are asking; but more than that, we might as well be concerned with whether or not we have been asking the right kinds of questions.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.96.html#msg1248945

Following that, I have been trying to say these few things:

(a) women do have leadership roles in the Body of Christ (I've tried to offer a few)

(b) the scope of such leadership roles are defined by two things:
     i. women are asked to not teach in the church[b]es[/b]
     ii. they are not to usurp authority over the men

(c) leadership in the Body of Christ is not exclusively reserved to men

(d) leadership in the Body of Christ is a partnership where men and women are called
     and spiritually equipped together for whatever roles they fulfill

(e) men and women are together priests in the NT; and the NT worship is not a continuum of the OT
      worship mode.

Perhaps a few more will come to my memory; but would these be of any help?

Regards.

Not at all bros, we're not quarreling. I was only asking what new questions you would want readers to contribute in this thread on the same topic that is an on-going discussion.

No vex. 







Edited:

Abeg again, no vex O! I get divided attention in my office just now. . . that's why I referred to you as "bros" instead of "sista"!! Please forgive me. 

@TayoD,

TayoD:
For instance, if a woman other than my wife speaks in church, how will she be usurping my authority when I have no authority over her?

(a) It is not a matter of personal standing; rather, it is a concern for divine order. What God has given is that the man is the head of the woman (I Cor. 11:3).

(b) It also did not say "let your wives keep silent in the churches".

(c) "if a woman other than my wife speaks in church" would contradict this verse: "women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak" (vs. 34). It is not a question of if another woman speaks; the point is that a woman is not permitted to "speak" (that is, not permitted to be public speakers as teachers regarded in positions of "masters".

(d) "how will she be usurping my authority when I have no authority over her?" - the Bible recognizes that as long as you're a man, the divine precedent is that you are placed in such a position (I Cor. 11:3).

TayoD:
It is only my wife who can usurp my authority if a situation that concerns my family needs to be addressed and she stands up to speak without my giving her the permission to.

(a) a woman does not require an individual man's permission to speak or be silent. It is rather the God's command that settles the matter - "as also saith the Law".

(b) the chapter under review here is not a matter of "domestic affairs" (concerns of family needs). Rather, it is one of ministry in the Body as pointing to what Eph.4:12 says - "the perfecting of the saints, the work of the ministry".

TayoD:
In the case of the Church as a separate entity from the family, Christ is the Head of that body and the sole autority over it. No member can usurp authority over another member because we are all under Christ's authority and not under each other's authority.

True, we are all under the authority of the head - Christ (I Cor. 11:3; also Col. 1:18 ). However, the point is that we are asked to submit to the authority of leaders whom God has set in His Church (Heb. 13:17).

TayoD:
Saying otherwise is to claim a pyramid of authority withing the body of Christ that looks like this: Christ ----- Male ----- Female. Isn't that a violation of the scipture that says there is neither male nor female in Christ? The only time gender is considered as basis for establishing authority is in regard to marriage, extending it to the church is preaching spiritual sexual inequality!

(a) The question of "neither male nor female" in Christ is pointing to salvation; and it speaks to our being the children of God by faith in Christ (Gal. 3:26-28 ). It is not a question there of relationships between one another or of service.

(b) Marriage is not the only time the gender issue comes up in view of authority. Please read again I Cor. 11:3 - "the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man". Whether one was married or not, that truth holds true for every male and female in the Body of Christ (including those unmarried in chapter 7).

TayoD:
I'll get to your other submissions later. I have to run now.

Bros, me sef busy for office. . . I just dey take this one relax (Monday is usually stressful for some of us)!!

@TayoD,

TayoD:
You know I appreciate you as well. You provided a breathe of fresh air from those who read total female silence in church into the scripture.

Bless you more, bros. It is this very question of totally silencing women in Church that is of grave concern to me.

TayoD:
Okay, let's take a closer look at those scriptures while cosidering the various ramifications.  1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. My persuasion that these scriptures are talking about a man-wife relationship is very glaring from verse 35 of 1 corinthians 14. It is evident that what Paul had in mind is a woman speaking in Church on the behalf of the family. A woman is under her husband's authority and she can only usurp her husband's authority and not any other male.

Let's clarify a few things. Could we honestly say that the gist of the apostle Paul's recommendations in I Cor. 14 are about domestic affairs at home between a man and his wife; and not rather as to the setting of divine economy between men and women in the Church? Which is it, really?

I'm more persuaded that the apostle was setting forth matters concerning the church in that chapter, rather than domestic concerns:

   vs. 5   -- "that the church may receive edifying";

   vs. 12 -- "seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church").

   vs. 19 -- "Yet in the church I had rather speak five words"

   vs. 23 -- "If therefore the whole church be come together into one place"

   vs. 26 -- "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together"

   vs. 28 -- "let him keep silence in the church"

   vs. 33 -- "as in all churches of the saints."

   vs. 34 -- "Let your women keep silence in the churches"

These all demonstrate that rather than domestic concerns, that chapter deals with the collective life of the Church.

So, what is the case of verse 35? Please note this: it said to ask the husbands at home if they wish to learn anything. It does not mean to teach the husbands; but to ask. However, that is in reference to vs. 34 which states that "they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law".

The elements mentioned in these verses should help shape our understanding here: "asking" questions may be in connection with raising objections. That is why vs. 34 says they are commanded - as also saith the Law. It does not mean at all that people cannot ask questions where matters are not clear to them; but to do so in a collective meeting of the saints gathered for worship and throw the meeting into something other than it was meant for would indeed be a violation of divine order.

The apostle (IMHO) was not calling for women to be mute in Church. Remember also that if a man was speaking in Church and did not know what he was saying, the same apostle recommended this: vs. 28 -- "let him keep silence in the church"! That should not surprise us, because in the same chapter the word is given that "God is not the author of confusion" (vs. 33); and in the churches of the saints, a precedence for orderliness according to God's Word is appealed to (vs. 34).


APPLICATION

The question may be asked: Is there any practical demonstration of this among the saints? I believe so.

Acts 18:25-26 -- "This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly."

This couple (Aquila and Priscilla) were Paul's companions in ministry (Acts 18:18 ). Now while the Bible says clearly that Apollos was a man well-taught (instructed) in the way of the Lord, he was even so received by the couple who together expounded the way of God more perfectly unto him. Notice the woman also with her husband clearly did the expounding/exposition to Apollos in a joint manner - together.

Of course, women can teach (and even expound) the things of God (please all readers - that is my personal opinion!). Women indeed can be "teachers of good things" (Titus 2:3). However, what I Cor. 14:34 and I Tim. 2:12 are speaking about in terms of women being silent would rather be pointing to the following:

   (a) as explained earlier in my previous rejoinder, to not teach in the church[b]es[/b] is in terms of the Biblical understanding that they are not viewed as seeking to be "masters" among the saints (James 3:1).

   (b) that they should not usurp authority over the man is in context of the ministry in Church life; rather than to a domestic situation.

I'm not done with the hair wahala. Make una wait small. . . biko, the Bible says "it is a shame for a man to have long hair" (I Cor. 11:14); let alone even cover his head (vs. 4).

Now, which one would you rather go for: adonri-shoba-shoba. . . or the long-hair-mania??

I'm coming back with the first one (adonri); but here are a few longomaniaristic-hair!

https://content.bbcmotiongallery.com/royaltyfree/thinkstockfootage/stills/17127-CHN/RF1-13862/RF1-13862.jpg


Isn't he handsome? Or make we shame the guy?

https://www.howtodread.com/dreadlocking.jpg


How far, bros?

https://thenewblack.web126.discountasp.net/PhotoFiles/dreadlocks.jpg


This guy is just stubbornly determined to make Samson jealous!!
No, that's not Delilah by his side!

https://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c374/bomshiva/jatah.jpg

Lol. . . abeg make una take am easy with onyex.

I just feel she limited the role of women by her submission. Please go to my subsequent reply to stimulus to understand my thoughts a little better.

I'll patiently await yours.

Cheers.

@TayoD,

TayoD:
2. A woman teaching in church (apart from older women teaching the younger ones).

My response to the second part will be in the form of questions.
a. Is 'teaching' a means of usurping authority?

Two things were mentioned in I Tim. 2:12 -- "But ^(A)[/b]I suffer not a woman to teach, [b]nor ^(B)[/b]to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

Teaching could be one of the several ways of usurping authority; but it ought not to be the only means that such is demonstrated. The gist here in connection is one that gives the idea of trying to be a "master" - and in that understanding, we know what it connotes. Sample these:

(a) "[b]Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither" - (Matt. 22:16)

(b) "Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master (lit. teacher) of Israel, and knowest not these things?" (John 3:10)

(c) "My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation." (James 3:1)

In it is this respect that women are cautioned that they be careful to not be "teachers" (masters) in the Churches, for that would be a contradiction of God's set order in His economy in the Body of Christ.

TayoD:
b. Am I now in error when I read books written by women? Joyce Meyers and Gloria Copeland are among the best teachers I know in the Body of Christ?

Now if you read I Tim. 2:12 as constrained within the idea of a man-and-wife situation; then again you are in error. Because, in the first place, you're neither married to any of these "best teachers"; and in the second place, I hope you've not set them as the "best masters" in the Body of Christ?

Lol, okay. . . I was being facetious there. But even so, I don't believe the premise of your argument is balanced. Once we've first taken care of the scope of I Tim. 2:12, then the argument of I Cor. 14:34 will become clear.

TayoD:
c. Don't you think Titus 2:3-4 is actually relying on the experience of older wpmen as advisers to younger ones and not an attempt to cut out a role for them to teach the Word of God?

Now, if my argument was trying to cut out a role for them to teach, it would mean that the women earlier referred to as the "best teachers" are doing something wrong! Experience counts on both sides (men and women), so I wouldn't see Titus 2:3-4 as applying only to the women.

Tit. 2:2 - "That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience."

'Age' here is not in terms of years; rather it is in terms of development and maturity in the faith - and it applies to everyone who takes a leading position in the affairs of Church life.

TayoD:
d. Don't you think Titus 2:3-4 is specific to older women and not to all women? How does that relate to the Prophecy in Joel with specific mention of young women.

The answer is again on either part of the men and women (whether young or old). Of course, not all men can teach either; nor are all men necessarily teachers. And of those who teach (whether men or women), the one thing that cannot be overlooked is that they should be mature in the faith before even assuming their roles.

Now, Joel's prophecy simply tells us that God's outpouring of the Spirit is not limited to just males - unlike as it was in the OT. Sons and Daughters would prophesy, it says; and this should speak to us well enough about the fact that in I Cor. 12, the ministry gifts of the Spirit are not limited or exclusive to just males.

TayoD:
I hope we can move forward from here and not keep marking time on one spot.

I trust so. Regards.  

@TayoD,

I very much appreciate your understanding and the concerns you've raised on this subject. In addition to what pilgrim.1 has offered in reply, let me see what little else I might proffer:

TayoD:
These in my understanding are:

1. A woman usurping authority over a man.

With respect to the first issue, I am very much persuaded that the Bible is refering to a Man and Wife situation and not a Male to Female situation. The implications of interpreting the verse to mean a Male-Female relationship is to propagate the notion that ALL females are by default under the authority of any human with a Penis (I hope my use of words do not offend anyone).

Well, let's look at the implication of your counter-point here. First, I applaud pilgrim.1's response to that, in the sense that I Tim. 2:12 speaks to the point of a man-woman relationship in the Body of Christ; rather than merely to a domestic situation at home. I believe that I Tim. 2:12 and I Cor. 14:34 tessellate perfectly on the core question of leadership and authority in Church; and I suppose that is why it is not by coincidence that the arrangement is first offered before its application.

       The divine arrangement:

       "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;
        and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
        (I Cor. 11:3)

       "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church:
        and he is the saviour of the body."
        (Eph. 5:23)


       In application:

       "Nevertheless
           (^A) neither is the man without the woman,
           (^B) neither the woman without the man,
           in the Lord."
           (I Cor. 11:11).

       "But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
       From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,
       according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto
       the edifying of itself in love."
         (Eph. 4:15-16)


Now notice a few things given to us in Ephesians 4. The risen and ascended Christ gave gifts unto men (generically implying men and women) (vs. 8 ). Then in verse 11 some of those gifts are stated: "he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers".

Here's the catch: if it is true that these gifts relate to a situation exclusively for MEN (males), would that not be contradicting the very fact that verses 15 and 16?? Notice that the gifts in vs. 11 point to a purpose given in vs. 12  --

             (a) For the perfecting of the saints,
             (b) for the work of the ministry,
             (c) for the edifying of the body of Christ

The "edifying of the Body of Christ" is also mentioned in vs. 16 as made possible by the participation of EVERY part - both men and women (the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love).

Since the Body of Christ is not an exclusive club for MEN in trousers, but also has has WOMEN in very involved roles in it, the "edifying of ITSELF in love" would be something difficult for many people if they do not take time to recognize that WOMEN are in view as well in those verses.

Further, let's see a few things that speaks of a partnership in the Body according to Ephesians 4:15-16:

        (a) the whole body is 'fitly joined together and compacted'

        (b) the ministry is by 'that which every joint supplieth' (women not left out)

        (c) the effectual working is according to 'the measure of every part' (including the women)

        (d) the result is that it 'maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love'.

Dear bros, can you see that women are called TOGETHER with the men to participate in BODY minsitry - and they have been given the necessary gifts as well to do so?  I would like to take this further if called upon to do so; but thus far is my point - that women have an indispensable ministry in the Body of Christ; and as such, they hold places of leadership and authority in the Church as do the men (of course, not forgetting the one explicit injunction that they do not usurp authority over the men).

@ghettochyk,

ghettochyk:
I'd also like to advise you to stop wasting your time trying to make "sage" see things your way. you have proper citations of what supports your views.

Well, many thanks for your commendation. Like you said, it's going to be hard trying to make sage (or anyone for that matter) see things my way; but on the other hand as he himself has stated, he was trying to see things rather from what he offered as Scriptural precedence for this very engaging topic.

@topic,
The question is not just one about whether a church is led by a woman or man. Often times, when it becomes as simplistic as that, then we make the mistake of seeing things for the most part as an exclusively men's world.

Rather than see it that way, I'm trying to offer a balance from what I believe Scripture presents to us on this issue. It is a matter of partnership in leadership (as pilgrim1 has rightly observed). It is a question of leading together in various capacities in the one Body of Christ, remembering that in this regard the Bible says:

           "Nevertheless
           (^A) neither is the man without the woman,
            (^B) neither the woman without the man,
           in the Lord."
            (I Cor. 11:11).

In other words, one should seek a balance and not make (A) the only thing that matters in leadership without the complement vital role of (B) in the Body of Christ.

Church authority and leadership is not a matter men-only-world. The one thing that we can all agree on at this time is that women are not to usurp authority over men in matters of teaching the Churches - both aspects well presented in the verses under review (I Cor. 14:34 and I Tim. 2:12).

My dear TV01,

TV01:
All I've said is that Bari_Kade does not need to solicit rejoinders prior to posting, as they will naturally flow after he does so.

After my previous rejoinder to yours, I had to go back again and re-read what we all were about. I still don't see that bari_kade was asking for rejoinders. He gave an outline which he (probably) believed were fresh concerns from what he had perused from previous entries; and he made that outline offer pursuant to Hnd-holder's incessant interjections to bari_kade's concerns.

Even at that, I still haven't read anyone (including myself) coming back to raise concerns in what he had offered, even though it was sketchy.

TV01:
As for the cut-off, I simply said that asking for rejoinders whilst unlikely to work and being counter-intuitive, was made even more difficult by not giving a cut-off time for them.

We are still waiting for Bari-Kade's insight and we all appreciate the size of the task and the time constraints.

Again, the cut-off time is out of the questions as we do not really know what would occupy our time. I'm sitting here and wondering why he hasn't shown up as yet; but then I trust we can all be patient and not try to set constraints on discussants.

The same thing had happened when I tried to engage Bobbyaf in another thread and had hoped that bari_kade himself would show up to weigh in on the discussion on the seventh-day sabbath law: the latter did show up (after a long absence) - but maybe a little later than I personally had hoped. Let's just forebear and be more patient.

TV01:
Meanwhile, I can respond to 2 questions you touched upon.

1. I never made the claim about "The Church replacing Israel". Nor has it been shown as pivotal to this discussion, so I haven't bothered pursuing that line of discussion.

I know you didn't raise the Church-Israel issue; and I'm glad that bari_kade answered thereto in regards Hnd-holder's offering that as explicatory to the tithe topic. Why did I bring that to bear in my previous rejoinder? For the simple reason that you had offered instead that bari_kade was rather denouncing and denying (rather than debunking) the arguments offered by others.

TV01:
2. Tithes under the law were exclusively agricultural products (of the land), except in the odd mitigating circumstance. Outside the law, I can see no scriptural imperative or divine command for a tithe, OT or NT.

Two things here:

(a) when you make something "exclusive", you leave no room for any possibility of an "exception" - so the idea that tithes were exclusively agricultural products is weakened by the excepted "mitigating circumstances";

(b) most people still hold on to this idea that tithes must by default be a demand (or akin to a command, mandate, coercion, force, compulsion, etc.). The point is (and I agree with bari_kade here) that it ought not necessarily be so. Infact, is that not the challenge he offered to the opposers of tithing to mirror their objections on any other type of "giving" as see if the same argument holds?

The one reason why I'm eagerly awaiting (as you are) bari_kade's input on this topic is to read from him concerning his persuasions as to what informs his tithing from outside the OT tithing law.

---------

Now, instead of sitting here and defending bari_kade's outline (as I really don't know where he might be coming from), I would like to offer you my thoughts on this topic. Please understanding that I'm not playing the "facile" exercise here to claim that I don't have a neat outline as yet; but will be back sometime during the week to make more input thereto.

However, I have come to believe that tithing is one of the several ways of NT giving for Christian believers. I have tried to carefully weigh the cogent arguments against tithes and mirrored them on any other type of giving in the NT; and I found that one really cannot militate against tithing and approve others with the same flawed arguments.

I forgot that one - naughty me!